Trending
As the stretch drive in the 2026 midterms commences, the Republican Party has inadvertently managed to divide itself over foreign policy.
Lindsey Graham’s ghost, in the form of renewed sanctions on Russia, ran into a roadblock named Donald Trump. Whereas many Republicans are anti-Russian, the president has sought a middle way. The GOP is, as per usual, knee-jerk in its response; Trump is more flexible and proved it by issuing an executive order essentially nullifying the Graham-proposed sanctions bill.
Now Democrats should be cautious in embracing GOP militancy regarding either Russia or the People’s Republic of China. For all their denunciation of “forever wars,” the Graham-Tom Cotton approach could lead to a conflict that makes the Ukrainian quasi-war seem minor by comparison. As Ronald Reagan quipped on another matter, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” Triangular diplomacy, Henry Kissinger style, can be complicated, even forceful, but fortunately this approach lacks hot-headed emotionalism. It seeks accommodation rather than total victory.
But the fly in the ointment is the how, not the why. Trump has always been a devotee of great power diplomacy; however, he also wants to be perceived as an instant winner.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have their own security concerns, namely Ukraine and Taiwan. Somehow they must all come to an understanding; Americans, Russians, and Chinese must all be appeased.
Trump’s advantage is that he sees the world in terms of access to key resources, although he faces a problem in that, although the public might despise endless conflict, they hate the thought that someone else might gain anything. Unfortunately, “linkage” of interest does not work that way, appearing more like a deal with the devil in the mind of voters. Again, Democrats would be wise to demur and avoid emotionalism unless they are prepared to upset world markets and prompt endless inflation.
For all their shortcomings, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are more sensible than Marco Rubio’s traditional George W. Bush’s policy.
Despite the American media, Russia is not losing in Ukraine, and China’s position in Asia has not diminished. What Trump’s peace-through-strength approach might be hinting at is satisfying both parties while not agreeing to all demands. Russia could demand the districts east of the Dnieper River, and China might demand disarmament of the Taiwanese government. This is theory, but it beats empowering Israelis, Iranians, and Houthis in their military capabilities. This is not a sporting event; it is a highly complicated geopolitical strategy.
Problems abound, but adopting the dangerous European Union approach is to court disaster and total failure. To play to the irredentist appetites of Poland and Germany and to the saber-rattling of the British and the French is risky in the extreme. As frustrating as it may be, Trump’s approach is more realistic than his so-called Republican allies. Rattle all the sabers but do not draw any. This is not Poland in 1939; it is a nuclear, beyond-nuclear age.